BOOK OF PROCEEDINGS

Edited by
Muhidin Mulali
Abdul Serdar ztrk
Tuba Boz

International University of Sarajevo

Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
Sarajevo, 2013

Book of Proceedings The International Conference on

EDUCATION, CULTURE AND IDENTITY
Edited by Muhidin Mulali, Abdul Serdar ztrk and Tuba Boz
Conference Chair
Assist. Prof. Dr. Tuba Boz, IUS
Organizing Committee
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Abdulserdar Ozturk, IUS
Assist. Prof. Dr. Muhidin Mulalic, IUS
Prof. Dr. Fethi Mansouri, Deakin University
Dr. Anna Halafoff, Deakin University
Assist. Prof. Semra Demir, Erciyes University
Assist. Prof. Dr. Barbara Ann Brown, IUS
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Lejla Panjeta, IUS
Assist. Prof. Amila Smajovic, IUS
Assist. Prof. Dr. Bisera Mavric, IUS
Assist. Prof. Meliha Teparic, IUS
Almasa Mulalic, IUS
Selvira Draganovic, IUS
Ervin Kovacevic, IUS
Naa Berberovi, IUS
Ahmed Kulani, IUS
Gulsen Devre, IUS
Musa Kse, IUS
smet Uzun, IUS
Ahmet Faruk Uzunta, IUS
Osman Grsoy, IUS
Abdulhamit Bolat, IUS

International Scientific Committee

Prof. Dr. Hasan Zuhri Sarikaya
Prof. Dr. Ozer Cinar
Prof. Dr. Ismail Kocayusufoglu
Prof. Dr. Ali Gunes
Prof. Dr. Besim Spahi
Prof. Dr. Wendy Smith
Prof. Dr. Fahrettin Kelestemur
Prof. Dr. Hseyin Altndi
Prof. Dr. Fuat Grcan
Prof. Dr. Suleyman Demirci
Prof. Dr. mit Tokatl
Prof. Dr. lhan ztrk
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Kemal Kksal
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ervin Poljac
Assist. Prof. Dr. Kenan Raidagi
Assist. Prof. Dr. Mirsad Serdarevi
Assist. Prof. Dr. Lynn Marie Tesser
Assist. Prof. Dr. Hasan Korkut

Printed by AMOS GRAF

CIP - Katalogizacija u publikaciji

Nacionalna i univerzitetska biblioteka
Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo
316.3:316.72](063)(082)
MULALI Muhidin, ZTRK Abdul Serdar, BOZ Tuba
INTERNATIONAL Conference on Education, Culture and Identity (2013 ; Sarajevo)
Book of proceedings / International Conference on Education, Culture and Identity, Sarajevo,
6-13
July 2013. - Sarajevo : International University of Sarajevo, Faculty of Arts and Social
Science,
2013. - 480 str. : graf. prikazi ; 30 cm
Bibliografija uz sve radove.
ISBN 978-9958-896-16-3
COBISS.BH-ID 20869382
International University of Sarajevo.
All rights reserved. Published 2013

International University of Sarajevo,

6-8 July, 2013

VIOLENCE AND PEACE: LEVERAGE OF THE

INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE MECHANISMS AND
INSTRUMENTS?
Maja SAHADI, Senior Assistant
International University of Sarajevo

Abstract
Over the last century, world (legal) history testifies of horrific atrocities committed,
engendering and causing mayhem to human kind in general by its catastrophic outcomes. As
an after effect, there have been established international justice mechanisms and instruments
with an aim to institutionally condemn and sentence acts that have been carried out, at the
international level. These mechanisms and instruments are often considered as mediating
institutions within clashed societies for their role is usually introduced in terms of
internationally acknowledged means of reconciliation. Question that rises is how these justice
mechanisms and instruments stir process of peace building and peace keeping towards
reconciliation, after violence occurred in so called transitional societies. Raising this question
also concerns addressing the past events which are the most vexed questions between former
parties in conflict. Analysis of post-conflict period in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sierra
Leone, East Timor, Kosovo etc. is of great importance to that effect. Therefore, this paper
examines influence, efficacy as well as prospects of international justice mechanisms and
instruments (military tribunals, ad hoc tribunals, special courts) in terms of accepting the
institutionally recognized past in post-violence period within clashed societies.
Keywords: Atrocity, Tribunals, Past, Violence, Peace.
Introduction
After conflict has eventuated, few issues arises: how clashed societies correspond on past
events, and (re)trace confidence and reliance in post-violence period. In the course of recent
years, different international justice mechanisms and instruments have been established to
interfere in judgment of acts that occurred in different regions. Namely, the Nuremberg
International Military Tribunal, the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, the
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal
Tribunal for Rwanda, the Special Court for Sierra Leone, Extraordinary Chambers in courts
of Cambodia, East Timor Special Panels for Serious Crimes, Special Tribunal for Lebanon,
Kosovo Regulation 64 panels, International Criminal Court, etc. Most of them are hybrid
courts and internationalized domestic courts and tribunals. These judicial bodies brought
significant decisions that unraveled and explained not just application of (international) law
but historical explication that led to essential development of strains in their functioning and
settled grounds for apprehension of past events between sides in conflict. In institutional
manner, these international justice mechanisms and instruments are often referred as to be
considered as institutions that gave contribution to unfolding their direct and indirect goals
which is to start process of reconciliation and truth. Therefore they have been considered to
be as vibrant nucleus for reflecting on violence and peace through its decisions. But the

463

question is if these international justice mechanisms and instruments fulfill its purpose in
initiating reconciliation process between clashed sides and transitional societies.
International Justice Mechanisms and Instruments Revisited
Different scholars have similar opinion on mechanisms and instruments that can be used in
addressing past events. They mostly agree that those include national and international level
criminal prosecutions, reform of state institutions, truth commissions and victims reparation.
Commonly, (international) justice mechanisms and instruments can be classified as military
tribunals; ad hoc tribunals; special courts created on agreement basis; the International
Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice; national courts that carry out
procedures within the scope of their national judicial system, and national courts that carry
out procedures in compliance with universal jurisdiction principle (Costi, 2006, pp. 213-239;
Fischer, 2007, pp. 2233). For the purpose of this paper, only first three will be discussed.
The Nuremberg International Military Tribunal was established by the 1945
Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European
Axis (so called London Agreement) between four Allied powers (the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the United States of America, France and the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics) whose integral part was Charter of the International Military
Tribunal. Military Tribunal was a set of different tribunals that were operating in different
locations while Nuremberg Trials were a number of different trials held in the Palace of
Justice in Nuremberg, Germany. The first trial was the Trial of the major war criminals that
started on 20 November 1945. This was also one of the earliest war crimes trials. The other
war crimes trials referred to low-level officers and officials that were tried by different
military courts in the United States of America, British, Soviet, and French occupation zones.
According to the Article 6 of the Charter held jurisdiction over crimes against peace, war
crimes, and crimes against humanity. Shaw (2008) for instance suggests that the Nuremberg
International Military Tribunal affirmed in ringing and lasting terms that international
law imposes duties and liabilities upon individuals as well as upon states as crimes against
international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only punishing
individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced.
The International Military Tribunal for the Far East was established by the 1946 Charter
of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East in relation to Japanese war crimes.
There was no significant distinction between those two tribunals. Article 5 of the Charter
makes the same notion in terms of jurisdiction as the Nuremberg Charter: crimes against peace, war
crimes, and crimes against humanity. Aust (2005) notes that the most important issues Tribunal
was dealing with were that persons are individually responsible for international crimes;
aggressive war is a crime against peace; a head of state and other senior officials can be
personally responsible for crimes even if they did not actually carry them out; and the plea of
superior orders is not a defense. These principles are now part of customary international law
even though their precise scope is still not clear (Ball, 1999; and Bantekas, & Nash, 2003).
The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was
established by the Security Council Resolution 808 (1993) and 827 (1993) under the Chapter
VII of the Charter of the United Nations. According to Articles 15 of the 1993 Statute of the
International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of
International Humanitarian Law in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, this
Tribunal holds jurisdiction over persons accused of serious violations of international
humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia beginning with 1991,
namely grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, violations of laws or customs of
war, genocide and crimes against humanity. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
(ICTR) was established by the Security Council Resolution 955 (1994) with similar aims as
464

International University of Sarajevo,

6-8 July, 2013

ICTY. Articles 14 of the 1994 Statute of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of
Persons Responsible for Genocide and Other Serious Violations of International
Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Rwanda and Rwandan Citizens
Responsible for Genocide and Other Such Violations Committed in the Territory of
Neighboring States between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1994 define that this Court
hold jurisdiction over persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian
law committed in the territory of Rwanda and Rwandan citizens responsible for such
violations committed in the territory of neighbouring States, between 1 January 1994 and 31
December 1994, namely genocide, crimes against humanity and violations of Article 3
Common to the Geneva Convention and of Additional Protocol II.
The Special Court for Sierra Leone was established by the 2002 Agreement between
the United Nations and the Government of Sierra Leone on the Establishment of the Special
Court of Sierra Leone pursuant to the Security Council Resolution 1315 (2000). Although
established by the agreement with the United Nations it does not constitute United Nations
body (Shaw, 2008,; Tolbert, & Solomon, 2006; and Schabas, 2006). Articles 1 5 of the 2002
Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone defines that this Court holds competence over
persons who bear the greatest responsibility for serious violations of international
humanitarian law and Sierra Leonean law committed in the territory of Sierra Leona since 30
November 1996, namely crimes against humanity, violations of Article 3 common to 1949
Geneva Conventions and of 1977 Additional Protocol II, other serious violations of
international humanitarian law and crimes under Sierra Leonean law. Noteworthy specialty of
this Court is its notion on personal jurisdiction over persons over 15 years of age defined in
Article 7 of the Statute. The Extraordinary Chambers in the courts of Cambodia was
established by the 2003 Agreement between the United Nations and the Royal Government
of Cambodia concerning the prosecution under Cambodian law of crimes committed during
the period of Democratic Kampuchea (Williams, 2005, pp. 447462). Nevertheless,
Agreement represents only contribution for the Courts functioning for it has been established
by the 2004 Law on the Establishment of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of
Comabodia for the Prosecution of Crimes Committed during the period of Democratic
Kampuchea which is domestic law. According to Articles 27 of the Law, this Court holds
competence over persons, senior leaders of Democratic Kampuchea and those the most
responsible for the crimes and serious violations of Cambodian laws related to crimes,
international humanitarian law and custom, and international conventions recognized by
Cambodia, committed between 17 April 1975 and 6 January 1979, namely: homicide, torture,
religious persecutions, crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of 1949
Geneva Conventions, destruction of cultural property during armed conflict, crimes against
internationally protected persons. The East Timor Special Panels for Serious Crimes (SPSC)
was established on a basis of the Security Council Resolution 1272 (1999) under Chapter VII
of the United Nations Chapter when the United Nations Security Council established the
United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET) after enduring
occupation of the East Timor by Indonesia. Therefore, UNTAET established special panels to
trial for serious crimes in the District Court of Dili and the Court of Appeal pursuant to
UNTAET Regulation No. 2000/11 on the Organization of Courts in East Timor and
Regulation No. 2000/15 on the Establishment of Panels with Exclusive Jurisdiction over
serious Criminal Offences. According to the Article 1.3 of the Regulation No. 2000/11 this
Court had competence over following serious offences: genocide, war crimes, and crimes
against humanity, murder, sexual offences and torture. In 2005, after most of the United
Nations infrastructure has been revoked, the Special Panels completed its work more than
five years after establishment. The Special Tribunal for Lebanon has been established by the
Security Council Resolution 1757 (2007), acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations
465

Charter, where annexed to the Resolution the 2007 Statute of Special Tribunal for Lebanon
was included. The Council established the Special Tribunal for Lebanon on a basis of 2006
Agreement between the United Nations and the Lebanese Republic on the establishment of a
Special Tribunal for Lebanon based on the Security Council Resolution 1664 (2006).
According to Articles 1 and 2 of the Statute this Court holds competences over persons
responsible for the attack of 14 February 2005 when former Lebanons Prime Minister Rafiq
Hariri was assassinated, but also over persons responsible for offences that took place
between 1 October 2004 and 12 December 2005 in Lebanon, namely acts of terrorism, crimes
and offences against life and personal integrity, illicit associations and failure to report crimes
and offences related to provision of the Lebanese Criminal Code and 1958 Lebanese Law,
section on Increasing the penalties for sedition, civil war and interfaith struggle. Kosovo
Regulation 64 panels is related to creation of panels and appointment of international judges
and prosecutors who would work with domestic judiciary (known as Regulation 64 panels)
by the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) for the purpose
of reestablishing the rule of law in Kosovo through. This was done on a basis of Regulation
No. 2000/6 on the Appointment and Removal from Office of International Judges and
International Prosecutors, Regulation No. 2000/34 on Amending UNMIK Regulation No.
2000/6 on the Appointment and Removal from Office of International Judges and
International Prosecutors and Regulation No. 2000/64 on Assignment of International
Judges/Prosecutors and/or Change of Venue. It holds competences over persons, low profile
offenders, responsible for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity committed at
the territory of former Yugoslavia from 1991. In 2008 this program was transferred to the
European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX).
Finally, in 1998, The Diplomatic Conference of the United Nations adopted the 1998
Statute of the International Criminal Court that entered into force in 2002. This presented the
first step towards permanent international tribunal after processes in Nuremberg and Tokyo,
which holds competences over the most serious international crimes.
Why National Justice Mechanism do not Hold Leverage on Post-Violence Trial?
Franovi (2008) notes that [m]any would argue that it would be much better if those indicted
were put on domestic trial, with local prosecutors and judges, here in the region [the author is
referring to the former Yugoslavia region]. But from the few cases processed by local courts,
and from the great political pressure under which the courts work, one can get the impression
that they will never be able to prosecute anyone who held a high position in the atrocity
hierarchy, but only the small pawns. It is comprehensible why certain authors do support
following opinion:
The immediate goals of the tribunals were to maintain peace and provide
justice to victims. If these are goals of international justice, then they should
be the basis upon which we judge the relative success and failure of these
tribunals. The difficulty of judging the success of these tribunals involves the
counterfactual example of what would be the current peace-building and
justice efforts in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda without the creation of
the tribunals. In other words, while the tribunals have not completely fulfilled
their mandates, the ICTY and the ICTR have provided more security and
justice than the national courts could or have provided (Barria & Roper, 2005).
It turns out to be that national justice mechanisms and instruments differ from
international ones in terms that they the most probably, contrary to judicial principles, have
political connotations based on prejudices between parties in procedure. Also, they often lack
necessary infrastructure, effective justice system, personnel as integral part of administering
justice in post-violence period. Therefore, it would the most likely be challenging, but also
466

International University of Sarajevo,

6-8 July, 2013

questionable, to enforce trials in post-violence period in domestic justice system, rather than
international. In such a way, for domestic level, to be in capacity to administer justice in postviolent period, it needs to emphasize the domestic/national capacity building, establish
criteria to evaluate the existing judicial system, survey and analyze the level of understanding
of the judicial system among the population, create a basis for protecting the interests of all
parties involved in past conflicts, and the (greater) involvement of domestic courts in past
atrocities trial (Sahadi, 2012).
Perspective on the Role of International Justice Mechanisms and Instruments in
Addressing Post-Violence Period
Observing the list of abovementioned international justice mechanisms and instruments it
seems obvious that there are many societies in post-violence period. These societies contain
different subjects that are whatsoever related to international justice mechanisms and
instruments functioning. Also, these mechanisms and instruments differ between each other
and therefore address conflict in respective society through different procedures and with
various methods. Even though it is popular sentiment that referencing the conflict period has
to be condemnation and punishment of perpetrators of atrocities and ensuring justice to
victims the matter of concern is not so simple (Tolbert, & Solomon, 2006, pp. 2962).
Endeavors that have been performed so far by and through international justice
mechanisms and instruments indicate several queries. International justice mechanisms and
instruments that were established after the World War II were considered as, precisely,
bodies that would, through fair trials, condemn and punish perpetrators and bring justice to
victims thus addressing past violations and restoring peace. Present day, they seem to be
considered more like bodies that established victors justice. In terms of ad hoc tribunals
established for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, so far they seem to be sluggish and
costly. At the same time, stalling the processes in administering justice in their work, anyhow
creates ambience in which peace-building and peacekeeping process in post-violence period
is not satisfactory supported by these bodies. Likewise, there is almost no, if any, articulation
on how these mechanisms and instruments assist striving with post-conflict consequences of
any kind, even though establishment of ICTY and ICTR was to support peace between
former sides in conflict. In terms of so called mixed or hybrid courts that were established,
for instance, in Sierra Leone, East Timor, etc. it is conceivable that by their nature,
application of laws produces varied issues, but still they appear to be less costly and faster.
Moreover, they seem to generate outright leverage on bringing justice in post-conflict
societies and addressing and confronting the past events between former sides in conflict.
This could be the rationale why those mixed or hybrid courts are preferred in addressing
violence and building peace in terms of justice mechanisms and instruments. For instance,
Costi (2006) indicates that [s]ome of the potential advantages of hybrid courts include the
ability to foster broader public acceptance, build local capacity and disseminate international
human rights norms. Collaboration with national and international legal personnel helps
bring international law and norms to bear in ways that can be internalized and
institutionalized. More generally, hybrid tribunals may go a long way to eliminate
definitely the perception that transitional justice mechanisms reflect victors justice. Any
temptation to standardize hybrid tribunals should be resisted. Their design must reflect the
unique circumstances in which they have to operate, the important challenges they face, and
the distinctive aims they pursue. The hybrid model is, at least for the foreseeable future, a
panacea in addressing international crimes in post-conflict situations. The question is
whether the ICC may stand for efficacious body in future human rights violations
prosecutions. In these terms, Tolbert (2006) justifiably concludes that [d]espite their
achievements, it is unlikely that there will be new ad hoc tribunals in the near future. Instead,
467

the ICC and hybrid courts will likely come to play the central role in international judicial
mechanisms. Because of its limited resources, the ICC will only be able to try the most
serious crimes and the leaders of the highest level. Thus, other mechanisms, particularly
hybrid courts of various types, will need to be established.
When International Justice Mechanisms and Instruments Influence Peace-Building in
Post-Violence Society?
Building the peace after violence occured, in actual perception, is usually related to
international justice mechanisms and instruments. Therefore transitional and restorative
justice are some of the most significant components of contemporary public international law
and therefore intrinsically component in post-violent societies. But, supervening to this, the
question is does international justice mechanisms and instruments hold leverage in building
peace after violent conflict.
Functioning of international justice mechanisms and instruments must influence not
only condemnation and punishment of perpetrators of atrocities and ensuring justice to
victims, but also create influence upon generating judicially confirmed evidence of the truth
about past violent events that is embraced by all sides in previous violence. Accordingly, this
should create and hand down historical legacy of past events through institutional record
keeping. May (2010) accurately refers towards conclusion that [a]lthough reconciliation is
also clearly about attitudes, knowledge and understanding are more important yet.
The matter of concern is whether this contributes to powering up sustainable peace
and reintegration contrary to malice and intolerance produced by past (violent) events. It
seems that Soloway (2002) correctly notes that tribunals lack the ability to promote national
reconciliation because they are not designed to address victims or communities but rather
focus on a few high ranking officials from previous political regimes. Rationally, some
authors do conclude that [w]hether these tribunals could ever become instruments of peace
and security is highly debatable. Moreover, it is difficult to imagine circumstances in which
national reconciliation could be created by an international institution. Any institution, no
matter how well designed, would have difficulty in providing peace and security as well as
reconciliation in these cases (Barria & Roper, 2005). But, the answer is manifolded.
International justice mechanisms and instruments do not deduce and establish opinion on
momentary situation in post-violence societies as they deduce and establish facts of past events.
Therefore certain authors do conclude following:
In the end we can see that in the first place there is no direct and clear
relationship between crimes trials in international tribunals and reconciliation.
It is a personal step between individuals who belong to different ethnic and
religious communities. Secondly, the understanding of justice for those who
survived or have witnessed war crimes cannot be equaled to procedures and
trials that are being held at international tribunals. For every individual in
particular, this notion is specific and, at the same time ambiguous. Thirdly,
there is no clear relationship between being exposed to traumatic events and
the need to try suspects of war crimes. In regards to the readiness for
reconciliation, the need for justice is related to numerous intervening factors
which moderate their relations to trauma. Fourthly, the reconstruction of a
post-war society is a complex and slow process that takes place on many
levels: between individuals, on a community level, and at the national and
state level (Stover & Weinstein, 2005).
Event though relationship between trials and reconciliation is not direct and clear, the
truth has to be determined and mutual agreement of truth has to be inspired for post-violence
societies to be able to overcome past issues. But, this is possible only through validation of
468

International University of Sarajevo,

6-8 July, 2013

international justice mechanisms and instruments that would have respect from and for all
parties involved in former conflict. Therefore it is important to accentuate that [t]he main
goal of truth and reconciliation process is not to establish the truth of each of once
belligerent sides, but to truth to be accepted and acknowledged in all communities and by all
clashed sides (Kesi, 2002). In addition, this has to be supported by readiness of the postviolence society to involve in truth identification process. Only if we identify and recognize
these mechanisms and instruments as form featured to present means of peace establishment
after conflict, resilient to manipulation, they would have leverage to constitute peace-building
factor in post-violence societies. Therefore, the following paragraph appropriately
corresponds to the issues identified above:
If we look back in the history, especially after the Second World War, we can
see that Nuremberg International Military Tribunal and International Military
Tribunal for the Far East performed a great role when it comes to the
individualization of guilt. Judicial proceedings indicated and pointed that
individuals are those who are responsible for their behavior. This is why we
cannot forget their impact on history, on addressing the past, on dealing with
the past, on confronting the past, and ultimately, the way of creating the past.
It is reasonable to ask ourselves what would happen if the tribunals in
Nuremberg, Tokyo, The Hague, Arusha, etc., were not established. Could we
have true cognition about the Holocaust or the genocide in BosniaHerzegovina and Rwanda? For example, since they began operating, the ICTY
and the ICTR are involved in efforts to factually establish the sequence of
events prior to and during the atrocities that were committed. So, the tribunals
task is not only to impose punishment, but also to identify and assess the truth
as a postulate for constructing an objective narrative of the past (Sahadi,
2012).
May (2010) is correct when states that [r]econciliation is not always consonant with
criminal trials, but there is good reason to think that some criminal trials for genocide will
indeed promote rather than hinder reconciliation. (...) It should be admitted, though, that trials
by themselves are not likely to achieve full reconciliation. Even though eventual influence
of international justice mechanisms and instruments is valuable and praiseworthy effort
related to peace-building, clashed societies also have to deal with violence consequences
through resolving suspicion and mistrust issues. Probably the most easiest way is through
stressing out significance of economical and social necessities and requirements in terms of
employment, education, etc. In the end, leverage of international justice mechanisms and
instruments remains major demand but is staggering. They cannot solve all post-violence
consequences alone. Decisions they render are relevant, but clashed societies have to confront
and deal with past events. This can be continuous, lasting and excruciating process.
Conclusion
Addressing the past issues in post-violence period may be considerably scarce if there is lack
of credence between clashed societies. International justice mechanisms and instruments can
play an important role in promoting and supporting process of reconciliation via addressing
past violence. Trials for the prosecution of persons indicted for their involvement in past
violence seems necessary to unblock restraints between clashed societies. Even though
international justice mechanisms and instruments, same as national justice mechanisms and
instruments, are sometimes considered, both by victims and perpetrators, as unreliable and
insecure in terms of fair trails due to alleged (political) influences and therefore ineffective.
To play relevant role in process of reconciliation, international justice mechanisms and
469

instrument have to show that that their legitimacy is exculpatory and that they possess
consistency without any trade-offs. In such a way, international justice mechanisms and
instruments provide and safeguard decisions that are sensitive towards all sides and
acceptable for the most part of clashed societies. But to generate and materialize more
efficient impact in clashed societies, it seems that international elements related to
international justice mechanisms and instruments processes need to be incorporated in
domestic justice mechanisms and instruments processes. Prime examples for this are mixed
or hybrid courts. To be able to acquire and withhold leverage, international justice
mechanisms and instruments need to be used as accelerators in reconciliation process within
clashed societies and facilitate peace building and peace-keeping in post-violence period.
References
Agreement between the UN and the Royal Government of Cambodia concerning the
Prosecution under Cambodian Law of Crimes Committed during the Period of
Democratic Kampuchea, United Nations. (2003);
Agreement between the United Nations and the Government of Sierra Leone on the
Establishment of the Special Court of Sierra Leone, United Nations. (2002);
Agreement between the United Nations and the Lebanese Republic on the establishment of a
Special Tribunal for Lebanon, United Nations. (2006);
Agreement for the prosecution and punishment of the major war criminals of the European
Axis ("London Agreement"), United Nations. (1945);
Aust, A. (2005). Handbook of International Law. London: Cambridge University Press;
Ball, H. (1999). Prosecuting War Crimes and Genocide: The Twentieth-Century Experience,
Lawrence: University Press of Kansas;
Bantekas, I., & Nash, S. (2003). International Criminal Law. London, Sidney, Portland:
Cavendish Publishing;
Barria, L.A., & Roper, S.D. (2005). How effective are International Criminal Tribunals? An
Analysis of the ICTY and the ICTR. The International Journal of Human Rights, 9,
349368;
Charter of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, United Nations. (1946);
Costi, A. (2006). Hybrid Tribunals as a Viable Transitional Justice Mechanism to Combat
Impunity in Post-Conflict Situations, New Zealand Universities Law Review, 22,
213239;
Drumble, M.A. (2007). Atrocity, Punishment and International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press;
Fischer, M. (2007). Dealing with the Past in Bosnia: Obstacles and Challenges for
Reconciliation in the Region of former Yugoslavia. In Sisson, J. (Ed.), Dealing with
the Past in Post-Conflict Societies: Ten Years after the Peace Accords in Guatemala
and Bosnia-Herzegovina (pp. 2233). Bern: Swisspeace Annual Conference;
Franovi, I. (2008). Dealing with the Past in the Context of Ethnonationalism, The Case of
Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia and Serbia. Berlin: Bergdorf Occasional Paper 29;
Kesi, V. (2002). Istina i pomirenje Da, molim! Ne, hvala! Temida, 5, 1921;
Law on the Establishment of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Comabodia for the
Prosecution of Crimes Committed during the period of Democratic Kampuchea, with
inclusion of amendments promulgated on 27 October 2004, United Nations. (2004);
May, L. (2010). Genocide, Normative Account. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press;
Moriss, V. & Scharf, M. P. (1995). An Insiders Guide to the International Criminal Tribunal
for Former Yugoslavia, New York: Transnational Publishers;
Regulation No. 2000/11 on the Organization of Courts in East Timor, United Nations. (2000);

470

International University of Sarajevo,

6-8 July, 2013

Regulation No. 2000/15 on the Establishment of Panels with Exclusive Jurisdiction over
serious Criminal Offences, United Nations. (2000);
Regulation No. 2000/34 on Amending UNMIK Regulation No. 2000/6 on the Appointment
and Removal from Office of International Judges and International Prosecutors and
Regulation No. 2000/64 on Assignment of International Judges/Prosecutors and/or
Change of Venue, United Nations. (2000);
Regulation No. 2000/6 on the Appointment and Removal from Office of International Judges
and International Prosecutors, United Nations. (2000);
Sahadi, M. (2012). International legal and institutional mechanisms and instruments that
influence the creation of the past. In Paukovi, D. & Raos, V. (Eds.), Confronting the
Past: European Experiences (pp. 2765). Zagreb: Political Science Research Centre
Zagreb;
Schabas, W. (2006). The UN International Criminal Tribunals: The Former Yugoslavia,
Rwanda and Sierra Leone, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press;
Schabas, W.S. (2000). Genocide in International Law. New York: Cambridge University
Press;
Shaw, M.N. (2008). International Law. New York: Cambridge University Press;
Soloway, M. (2002). Cambodia's Response to the Khmer Rouge: War Crimes Tribunal vs.
Truth Commission, Appeal, 8, 3245;
Statute of Special Tribunal for Lebanon, United Nations. (2007);
Statute of the International Criminal Court, United Nations. (1998);
Statute of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious
Violations of International Humanitarian Law in the Territory of the Former
Yugoslavia since 1991, United Nations. (1993);
Statute of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide
and Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the
Territory of Rwanda and Rwandan Citizens Responsible for Genocide and Other Such
Violations Committed in the Territory of Neighboring States between 1 January 1994
and 31 December 1994, United Nations (1994);
Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, United Nations. (2002);
Stover, E., & Weinstein H.M. (2005). Moj sused, moj neprijatelj: pravda i zajednica u
vremenu nakon masovnog zloina. Psihologija, 38, 5576;
Tolbert, D. & Solomon, A. (2006). United Nations Reform and Supporting the Rule of Law
in Post-Conflict Societies. Harvard Human Rights Journal, 19, 2962;
Williams, S. (2005). Genocide: The Cambodian Experience, International Criminal Law
Review, 5, 447462;
Zupan, N. (2004). Facing the Past and Transitional Justice in Countries of Former Yugoslavia.
Retreived
December
15,
2012,
from
http://www.berghof-center.org/
uploads/download/dayton_zupan_rec.pdf.

471